iwebber

Massive fan of RFP in it's day, haven't used it for ages, indeed haven't used FS9 since P3Dv4 and haven't used that since about 2 years ago... However, I'm a digital hoarder... https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gvrp8w3q7e2b5is0gmom2/RFP.7z?rlkey=88lo36pyyi5fbadykxd5og021&st=grdm5w0u&dl=0 Hope this helps, Ian

Try AI Aircraft Editor, along with Model Converter (MCX) you should be able to check your AI aircraft installs. https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/ai-aircraft-editor-version-4-2-1-released.458324/ https://www.scenerydesign.org/modelconverterx/ HTH Ian

What everyone else said is right and also, from memory (it's been 10 years since I flew the A32X) the autothrottle didn't always do what you expected. I recall being on final and the autothrottle happily letting the speed drop a few knots low, then at about 100ft suddenly realising and stuffing on a fistful of power. As the thrust levers don't move, unless you were looking at the ECAM at the time you wouldn't really notice until the power came on. Let's just say that it could 'destabilise' the approach. It didn't always do it but when it did it caused a bit of sphincter exercise, especially if it was a challenging landing already.

Plan fuel - not required - used for planning purposes before you've been refueled (I think) Crz alt - Put your cruise alt in here, tells VNAV what the cruise alt is for the inflight performance calcs. Crz wind - not required - used to optimise the arrival time and fuel calcs. Most plans will have an average wind or, failing that, a top of climb wind. Top of Climb OAT - not required - as above, usually on the plan Only the cruise alt is required and as to where to find this info, it very much depends on what format the simbrief file (brief?) is. Hope this helps,

Do you mean this one? https://library.avsim.net/search/basic/root/Weather Radar VC %26 pop-up Gauge V 1.0

As Rick said, in the US it's very strictly mandated that you shouldn't fly over 250kts below 10000ft (unless aircraft performance requires you to) but in the rest of the world they're less rigid about it. It makes the ATCer's life easier to have everyone at similar speeds (for spacing and turn radius etc) so the rule's on the books and they expect it (and we usually fly it) but if it's not too busy (or sometimes if you're getting in the way they will ask you) you can request high speed and they'll happily grant it. Some aircraft (757?) have a windshield protection speed which is roughly 250 below 10 so they would probably respect it worldwide. The big gotcha that often gets non US operaters (in the US) is when the ATCer says "no speed restriction" as most (non US) people believe this means "no speed restriction". In the States the ATCer doesn't have the authority to cancel the 250 below 10 speed restriction so what they mean is "you don't have to comply with any of the SID/STAR/previous ATC speed restrictions but you do have to obey the 250 below 10 speed restriction". And equally, when a US operator (not in the US) is told to "maintain high speed" the ATCer is expecting them to "maintain high speed" and not "maintain high speed until 10000ft and then slow down". It's all part of the rich tapestry of international travel.

Check that the voltage required for XMP is being correctly set by the BIOS. I had a board that said it was delivering 1.35v but the hardware monitor in the BIOS showed it as 1.32v. It gave me the kind of problems you're experiencing. When I bumped it up a bit (I think I typed in 1.38v which showed about 1.35v) everything worked as it should. I've never come across an XMP profile that didn't work. Failing that, test each stick individually, could be one of them is faulty. Good luck, Ian

Ah, the memories... G-BKVB, a 110ST, was the first I ever took the controls of... My only recollection of it was reversing over Kent on a particularly windy day... Better at slow speeds than fast, the Ralleye...

Centre runway's closed at the moment... or at least it was last time I was there

I believe it's from the game "Halo"...

The track message shows the validity times of each track (https://www.notams.faa.gov/common/nat.html) It's usually 0100-0800z eastbound and 1130z-1900z westbound but whatever it says in the track message is correct. I don't really use simbrief so I don't know how to select an alternative. All of this is irrelevant though, if you reach 30W outside of the time window for your selected track, you'll get the error message you initially posted about.

Define 'correctly'. Do you reach 30W between the active track hours of 0100z to 0800z? If not, the track isn't valid anymore and you'll see that message. At the planning stage, the system won't know what time you'll reach 30W so it's impossible for it to know if it's valid or not. It's only when you actually generate the plan that it figures it out and then tells you.

So everything is working exactly as advertised. For the record, in Belgium you are GMT +2 so at 7:20 GMT it's 9:20 local. Your AI flightplan says departure at 7:20, this is in GMT, so when you see it push about 9:20 local it's spot on. Hope this helps, Ian

No, an engine failure in a twin is a land at nearest suitable, they would have dumped fuel and returned to LAX. And, No, according to the wiki article you quoted, "BA said they hadn't changed their procedures" so their flight continuation policy remains the same and even today a jumbo (or 380) would/could continue to destination on three engines (still 50% more than the 777 departed with). Flight safety has improved and so has our evaluation of it, if a 777/330 can fly across the Atlantic on 2 engines a jumbo can get across it perfectly safely on 3.

Errrrr, they diverted to Manchester... I suppose that's a bit like swimming but your feet don't get wet. You're proving their point though, engine failure at 300ft and still managed to fly over 4500 nm to get everyone to within 20 mins of their original destination, would have never even been reported if the winds weren't so bad over the Atlantic. Like to see you do that in a twin... I agree that doesn't necessarily mean they're safer but they have much more redundancy and can withstand more failures (particularly engine related) and continue safely than a twin. Ian

Sorry to resurrect this old topic but was wondering if anyone ever found an answer to this. I just tried a Canarsie and on passing DHYML, found the visual picture sorely lacking: no approach lights, no race track, no 'T' hotel. I have the FSDT KJFK and was hoping for a bit more off the field. Was there any setting/file/config change I need to make to get these things to appear? Many thanks, Ian

Sorted it by copying all the original textures for Scenery\World\Texture from Disk4 then reapplying GEPro textures. No idea exactly what was causing the problem but this solved it. Hope this helps, Ian

OK, thanks... Using the Ultimate Terrain Setup tool, I've deselected and reselected all the items (thus hopefully correcting any files that were corrupt/missing) and I still get the same issue. On further investigation, it's a worldwide (not just UT) problem. Any ideas what the issue is and how I can fix it? Ian

Dear all, While considering an upgrade to Evo (or other global texture update) I've suddenly noticed all my textures are in perfect squares with little or no blending between the landclass areas. I use GEX and I tried reinstalling the base textures but with no success. Here's a screenshot of what I mean... Does anyone know what file(s)/setting I need to change to stop this from happening? Many thanks, Ian

The QNH back set on the altimeter is 1013 suggesting it's not in the States so the 250 below 10 is less strictly enforced. The reasons I can think of are: -They're late and want to try and make up some time (although by this stage there's not much time to be saved) -They're high on the approach/altitude restriction and need to lose energy so they're diving it off -ATC may have asked them to (for spacing, sequencing, whatever) Hope this helps, Ian

Just headlines I'm afraid, Mitch, there hasn't been any findings released yet. There certainly has been a lot of leaks and the newspapers are reporting a whole load of "facts" they've gleamed from unverifiable sources (as only newspapers can) but there aren't any findings yet. I hope that behind the scenes there are many intellegent, professional people working towards finding out everything they can about the events leading up to the crash and trying to determine at what point this could have been foreseen. I'm sure they will be looking very hard at his previous medical results and how/who they were communcated to, they will also be scouring through DLH and GWI communications to establish exactly what they knew. I'm sure they are also interviewing his friends/family and crew at GWI at length. Once they have this information they can start analysing the data, ultimately making conclusions. They may conclude there was no way to realistically predict it (although that feels unlikely if even half of what the press has been publishing is true) or they will be identifying (probably many) areas for improvement. I'm not a lawyer or the vindictive/revenge sort (which I guess is easy when you don't know anyone involved, I may not be so unemotional if it were my friends/family involved) so I'm not overly fussed about whodunnit or who to sue or which company shold be put out of business. I am a pilot, so I am very interested to know what they think should be done to avoid an event like this in the future. I hope they won't bow to the media frenzy knee jerk reactions that have been called for so far. Having said that, I'm also human and can't help but speculate even based on the highly unreliable information we have so far (so please accept the assertions I make based on very little evidence as there simply isn't any yet). Should he have been at the controls? Absolutely not. He had a history of serious mental disorders (he wasn't just an unhappy chap, he was a bipolar, suicidal, fruit cake) and I'm amazed that that alone didn't remove him from the potential hire pool. That DLH and GWI were prepared to hire him seems like an extraordinary risk. I'm all for not stigmatising mental illness as I am for not stigmatising disability but (as I think Kevin already mentioned) a blind person is not being discriminated against for not being offered a job as a pilot. The questions I think need answering are (amongst others) -how did he get/keep his medical? -did GWI DLH know of this medical past? -if so, what risk assessment did they do based on his medical history? -what extra precautions did they take to ensure his continued ability to operate? -how was this policed/checked? -had anybody ever reported him for anything related to his mental condition? Once we know the answers to these questions (and I mean facts, not newspaper headlines) then I think we'll be in a much better position to determine where the system broke down and how this can be avoided in the future (and for the lawyers out there, who's fault it was and who should pay who how much). I'm very aware that in the absence of any actual facts at the moment, this is is all pure speculation, there may be a whole different side to this we simply don't know about yet.

The official report hasn't been released (or even written) yet so I don't think it's fair we start making our own judgements based on what the media have told us, they're not known for their impartiality, technical knowledge and unemotional reporting on aviation incidents. Having said that, it does look like he did it. My point is that *why* he did it and the factors leading up to him doing it are still very much uncertain. We don't know if it was pre meditated or impulsive. There's a good chance we never will, although I'm sure we'll have numerous opinions from the experts. I agree, it's very worrying that Lufty knew about his previous problems but didn't see fit to keep a closer eye on him (or if they did, they didn't do it very well).

http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004aia&DLID=140185 Hope this helps, Ian

Completely (and vehemently) disagree. An Air Marshall is a human being just like you, me and Lubitz, they will have a family/home life that can be just as colourful and varied as ours and they suffer the same effects of it. Anyone on the aircraft with a gun is an immediate and serious threat to it's safety. We don't know that, all we know (and even this isn't official yet) is that he had previous known mental conditions and was signed off work by a Doctor. We have no idea if it was pre meditated, if something happened on the Barcelona nightstop or if it was just a crazy depressed idea he had when the Captain left the flight deck. That would take months to get that kind of authorisation and who's to say a terrorist couldn't get it using guile, cunning and a con trick. If that was implemented we might as well not lock the door in the first place. It wouldn't have saved this aircraft either, it only took 8 minutes to crash, the Captain was in the loo for (say) 3 minutes, it would take him another 2 or 3 to realise something was wrong, he only a few minutes knowledge that he was locked out (and didn't necessarily know his life was in danger until quite near the end). Just out of interest, how did you anticipate the locked out pilot contact the company (or relevant authority) and describe the situation, establish the threat level and get them to remotely open the door. How would he prove he was who he said he was and how how would they establish his credentials and *shock* *gasp* make a decision in under, even, 5 minutes? Sorry to burst your bubble (and I know you're a respected member of the Avsim team so please don't get me banned) but every time you get on an aircraft you are opening yourself up to all kinds of additional risk. Risk of bad weather, faulty aircraft, other nutters in the sky and all manner of other potential hazards. Deliberate pilot mishandling of the aircraft is incredibly rare and, as fresh in our minds as it seems at the moment, is highly unlikely. Of all the risks you need you and your loved ones protected from, this is one of the least likely out there. Having said that, I agree that there needs to be changes in the way pilots are vetted (medically and competancy wise both intially and on an ongoing basis) to ensure that unfit pilots do not get at the controls of an aircraft. The stigma, job security and financial pressures of going sick need to be addressed to make it easier and more likely that unfit pilots don't feel compelled to come to work. And (for the umpteenth time) THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN STOP A PILOT AT THE CONTROLS FROM CRASHING THE AIRCRAFT!!!! No additional guns, people in the flight deck and remotely controlled doors will help. Whilst the precise chain of events that led to this tragedy may have been helped by some of these, if he wanted to crash the aircraft he could have done it with the Captain sat next to him. If you want pilots to be able to save the day then you have to give them the ability to ruin the day too, one events ruined day is another events saved. Flight crew make the call... Tut tut Kevin, I was told off for my sarcasm...

I think we're missing the point here... The Flight Crew are the last line of defence for both the known unknowns (weather, traffic, etc) and the unknown unknowns (???), to steal a phrase. Adding another layer to "protect" people from the Flight Crew is a false economy, who protects us from the protectors, who protects us from them, and them? If you start putting another layer of personel/procedure above the Flight Crew the Captain is essentially not he Captain any more, he answers to the layer above. There is simply no need to do this. Added to that, any additional personnel you add can also have their own agenda/issues that can endanger the flight. All humans have it, military trained or otherwise. If they're not pilots who are involved in the actual flight in question, they probably won't understand half of what's happening most of the time anyway, how can they possibly know when/if to intervene. As tragic as this (and all the previous similar events) is, any human has the potential to not behave as trained and harm the very people they're meant to protect, any layer of "protection" you add just adds another person who can do exactly the same thing. The Flight Crew are there to "protect" the travelling public. The travelling public are "protected" from the Flight Crew by having robust procedures in place so as not to let an unfit pilot at the controls. If these procedures break down (as events all over the world have shown they can - but let's not forget we don't know how many people have been quite rightly grounded in the past and saved an airliner) then I'm afraid there's little you can do but hope that the good guy wins. Adding extra procedures and humans to the solution only increases the chances of someone going crazy and killing everyone. I'd always prefer that the ultimate person in charge of an airliner is an operating pilot, simple as that. I think it's fair to say that given the amount of flying that takes place these days, the chances of being involved in an accident are extremely rare and for that accident to be caused solely and intentionally by the Flight Crew is even rarer still. Just because it's happened recently doesn't mean it's suddenly more likely. Of course, I'm sure there are lessons to be learnt from this event but I hope they are restricted to what happens on the ground and don't influence the daily operations of airliners. Although, if we're coming up with (silly) ideas to stop this happening again, how about we just don't lock the flight deck door? Captain would have been able to get back in the flight deck and saved the day, problem solved, let's do that then...